Editorial: Washington's giving boycotts a bad name

The United States Capitol is seen on Capitol Hill Feb. 27 in Washington.

When the boycott becomes a regular tool of our politicians, does that mean it's no longer effective for the rest of us? We pose this question in the wake Thursday's meeting of the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. Well, officially, there never was a meeting because there wasn't an official quorum.

Originally, the panel was supposed to vote on Gina McCarthy's nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency. But that didn't happen because of a Republican boycott of the meeting led by Louisiana's U.S. Sen. David Vitter. Only Democratic committee members took seats Thursday. Empty were the seats of the eight Republican panelists, and at least two Republican members must be present for the meeting to constitute a quorum.

President Obama named her as his Cabinet pick March 4. During the vetting process, McCarthy has fielded as many as 1,000 questions, committee chairwoman Democrat Barbara Boxer, of California, said. "I'm rather stunned that this has happened. I have never seen a nominee in my life answer more questions than Gina McCarthy has done."

She and other Democrats on the committee accused Republicans of maintaining a pattern of obstructionism. "Every nominee is entitled to a vote, particularly a nominee like this one," Boxer said. "Denying the president's nominee with this level of experience who's been confirmed by the Senate for the position she now holds is wrong. It's unacceptable."

Vitter says McCarthy, currently the assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation, still hasn't addressed specific questions about her position on a carbon tax, greenhouse gas emissions and ethanol. In a news conference about the boycott, Vitter also cited a lack of "sunshine" on the part of the EPA in regards to Republican requests for information on significant policies. "Gina McCarthy is not coming in from the outside. She holds a very significant (EPA) position right now," he said.

We don't fault Vitter and the other Republican members for their opposition to McCarthy. Indeed, we welcome their cause. Who doesn't want more transparency in our government agencies? But somehow, the use of a boycott by individuals elected to lead seems slightly offensive. They were voted into office not to stage protests; they were sent to Washington to work with their fellow lawmakers, and that's not what happened Thursday.

To be fair, the Democrats have pulled the same boycotting tactic. Apparently, boycotting as a form of leadership is a non-partisan gesture.

Historically, boycotts have been the vehicle by which members of a community have joined forces to correct an injustice or to make a broader statement that just isn't possible on an individual basis. Looking back, calling upon the collective in most cases eventually led to positive change in the United States. Certainly, it was a common tool of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Perhaps the best known: the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott in 1955, after the arrest of NAACP activist Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a public bus.

The economic and social impact of the Montgomery demonstration highlighted existing injustices in a realistic way for the average American citizen, as well as drawing international attention to the daily indignities being perpetuated by a culture based on the notion of racial superiority. And change came.

Finding the boycott now in purely political use in the halls of the U.S. Congress just doesn't seem right by comparison, though, it is not surprising given the divisive partisan environment. Our elected officials seem too eager to just walk away rather than have legitimate debate or govern by odd filibuster rules which allow for the minority, not the majority to rule. And they're starting to give the boycott a bad name.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Editorial: Washington's giving boycotts a bad name

When the boycott becomes a regular tool of our politicians does that mean it's no longer effective for the rest of us? We pose this question in the wake Thursday's meeting of the U.S. Senate's